The CETIS Special Interest Groups

1

The CETIS Special Interest Groups
2
MUSIC Measuring and Understanding the Systems
Integration Challenge in Higher and Further
Education

• Vashti Zarach (summary from a survey done by a
  team at the Newcastle Centre for Social and
  Business Informatics),
• Enterprise SIG Coordinator, JISC CETIS

16th JISC CETIS Enterprise SIG Meeting University
of Nottingham Fri 20th April 2007
3
About the survey

• In early 2006, JISC put out a tender for a
  project to investigate the extent of information
  systems integration
• The project was given to a team from The
  Newcastle Centre for Social Business
  Informatics led by James Cornford
• Some brief details of the project and project
  team are here http//www.campus.ncl.ac.uk/unbs/sb
  i/Project2.asp?ProjectID36

4
Survey methods

• Questionnaires
• Higher Education the questionnaires were
  initially sent out electronically by UCISA to
  contacts but response was poor so MUSIC contacted
  senior information systems personnel by phone,
  eventually getting 29 completed questionnaires
  n.b. there are 114 universities in the UK
  according to http//www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/faqs/
  showFaq.asp?ID2
• Further Education MUSIC phoned IT directors and
  managers at 300 colleges directly, but final
  returns were 21 questionnaires
• Phone interviews
• The team conducted 3 phone interviews for each
  institution
• Site visits
• The project team made 5 site visits for more in
  depth interviews

5
Intention of the Survey

• JISC commissioned the project to gain an overview
  of the extent of systems integration in the
  sector, and use this to feed into development.
• Project Remit
• To find evidence for the extent and nature of
  systems integration
• To explore organizational and managerial factors
  encouraging or inhibiting integration
• To look at benefits and risks of integration

6
What is systems integration?

• The project report explains systems integration
  as an issue which has arisen from the development
  of computer information systems for
  administration (Student Records, Finance, Human
  Resources, etc) and teaching (VLEs, etc)
• The report says that over the last 10 to 15 years
  institutions have moved from using systems built
  in house to using systems bought from vendors,
  and need to make these systems interoperable

7
Why to institutions want to integrate systems?

• The survey lists these as the main drivers for
  integration
• To improve institutional information management
• To support the student experience more seamlessly
• To avoid duplicating and re-entering data

8
Well linked systems

• 100 of institutions had links between Finance
  and Student Management (Student Records)
• 100 had links between Library and Student
  Management
• 95 had linked Finance and Human Resources
• 91 had linked Student Management and Timetable
• 90 had linked Student Management and VLE
• 83 had linked Finance and Estates
• 75 had linked Human Resources and Research
  Support

9
Poorly linked systems

• Finance and Timetable or e-Portfolio
• Estate and Library, VLE and e-Portfolio
• Timetable and Library and Research Support
• Library and Research Support

10
Other findings from the survey

• Universities had more systems integration than FE
  colleges
• Admin systems tended to be integrated together
  (Finance, HR, Estates, Student Management)
• Teaching and learning systems (VLE/MLE, Library,
  Timetable, e-Portfolio, Student Management)
  tended to be integrated together, but less
  tightly than admin systems, in a hub and spoke
  configuration centered around Student Management
  (which was also at the core of admin systems
  integration)
• The most common method for linking systems is
  periodic data dumps between systems
• Very few institutions have a formal systems
  integration policy
• Mote institutions described their integration as
  incomplete, with further integration intended

11
Approaches to integration

• In house DIY approach to systems and integration
• Buying external systems from a small number of
  vendors, thereby either reducing integration
  issues or passing them on to vendors
• Ad hoc integration using data dumps and data
  adaptors
• Using a central hub between systems sharing data
• SOA This approach, in which resources on a
  network are made available as independent
  services that can be accessed without knowledge
  of the underlying platform implementation, was
  generally noted as an aspiration or destination
  rather than a currently existing strategy.
• N.B. Most institutions were in transition between
  various approaches

12
Barriers to further integration

• Lack of resources (costs of staff etc)
• Lack of in house skills (especially in FE)
• Resistance from academic and service departments
  wanting to do their own thing and protect their
  data
• Lack of representation of the system integration
  issue at senior level
• Lack of understanding in parts of the
  organization about the multiple uses of data and
  too much focus on data being used for local
  purposes only

13
Risks of integration

• More errors
• Good integration can make integration invisible,
  so unappreciated by end users
• Talk of integration can lead to overambitious
  user expectations
• Integration doesnt always result in more user
  engagement
• Vendors can lose enthusiasm leaving organizations
  with large bills and unfinished work
• Integration projects can spiral out of scope

14
Projects Recommendations to JISC

• 1. Provide a focus for people dealing with
  systems institution e.g. an annual conference
• 2. Support work exploring new systems
  architectures and business models, inc SOA and
  shared services
• 3. Work with vendors of HE and FE systems on
  their approach to integration
• 4. Research end user experiences and expectations
  of integration
• 5. Support better evaluation of integration
  projects and approaches

15
Final Slide

• Project contacts
• James Cornford (james.cornford_at_ncl.ac.uk)
• Rob Wilson (rob.wilson_at_ncl.ac.uk)
• Survey summarised by Vashti Zarach, Enterprise
  SIG (V.R.Zarach_at_bolton.ac.uk)